donsutherland1 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Thanks to William's constructive commentary regarding climate records in a number of cities, including Bridgeport, I was able to research records that predate the Sikorsky Airport record. Below are the snowiest winters on record. Currently, 2013-14 ranks 13th in Bridgeport based on the expanded data set. 1995-96 also fell to #3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cut Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Holy smokes that is an insane amount of snow!!! 93.9" Wow. I am several miles from Bridgeport, and see that city get paralyzed for at least a day after even a modest storm. What was the biggest storm that winter of 1898-99? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sn0waddict Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Holy smokes that is an insane amount of snow!!! 93.9" Wow. I am several miles from Bridgeport, and see that city get paralyzed for at least a day after even a modest storm. What was the biggest storm that winter of 1898-99? Did you see Bridgeport after Nemo? Looked like a disaster zone, roads unplowed for days & cars abandoned on the post road. Meanwhile in Fairfield everything was business as usual 1-2 days later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockawayRowdies Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Did you see Bridgeport after Nemo? Looked like a disaster zone, roads unplowed for days & cars abandoned on the post road. Meanwhile in Fairfield everything was business as usual 1-2 days later Never.. ever.. use a weather channel name on this board. If you do, expect people to bash you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juliancolton Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Never.. ever.. use a weather channel name on this board. If you do, expect people to bash you Nemo is the only storm I refer to by its given TWC name. There's something so whimsically outrageous about it that it resonates with me, and apparently others. Great info Don, thanks for posting. It looks like this season will have no trouble working its way toward the top of the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 20, 2014 Author Share Posted February 20, 2014 Holy smokes that is an insane amount of snow!!! 93.9" Wow. I am several miles from Bridgeport, and see that city get paralyzed for at least a day after even a modest storm. What was the biggest storm that winter of 1898-99? There were 2 monster storms: 11/26-27/1898: 34.0" (1.90" liquid) -- the "Portland Storm" 2/12/-14/1899: 22.5" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 20, 2014 Author Share Posted February 20, 2014 With respect to the 11/26-27/1898 snowstorm, some additional data: Hartford: 2.40" precipitation (but no snowfall figure reported) New London: 27.0" From the Hartford Courant of November 28, 1898: East Hartford: No efforts were made to break roads yesterday. There were no papers and no milkmen yesterday. The town is one vast field of snow. New Britain: The storm in New Britain was the worst since the 1888 blizzard. The streets are filled with drifts from four to six feet deep... Windsor: The snow in Windsor was about eighteen inches deep and badly drifted in every direction about the town. Winsted: The worst snowstorm known here since the blizzard [blizzard of 1888] and probably the severst of any known here in November has been raging here for over twenty-four hours. There is now two feet of snow on the level, and as the wind is very high it is making many drifts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cut Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Wow, Don, thanks for the information. Cool to envision that amount of snow in November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 20, 2014 Author Share Posted February 20, 2014 Wow, Don, thanks for the information. Cool to envision that amount of snow in November. I agree. Incorporating the earlier data into the record, below are the largest snowfalls for Bridgeport for each month from November through March period (1898 through 2014): November: 34.0", 11/26-27/1898 December: 19.0", 12/26-27/1947 January: 16.7", 1/19-20/1978 February: 30.0", 2/8-9/2013 March: 18.0", 3/12-14/1888 Overall, there were 39 snowstorms that brought 1 foot or more of snow (including the Blizzard of 1888). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 Below are the 10 biggest snowstorms in Bridgeport: 1. 34.0", 11/26-27/1898 2. 30.0", 2/8-9/2013 3. 25.5", 2/19-20/1934 4. 22.5", 2/12-14/1899 5. 20.0", 2/17-18/2003 6. 19.0", 12/26-27/1947 7. 18.0", 3/12-14/1888 8. 17.7", 2/9-10/1969 9. 17.0", 12/19-20/1948 10. 16.7", 1/19-20/1978 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian5671 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 One asterik needed there...1/5/96 was grossly undercounted in BDR at 14 inches. 5 miles away I measured 24. Doubt there was only 14 when most of the area was close to 2 feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pamela Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Below are the 10 biggest snowstorms in Bridgeport: 7. 18.0", 3/12-14/1888 That 18" for the Blizzard of 1888 doesn't quite look right...given the 47" that fell just up the yet to be constructed Interstate 95 in New Haven...(and if there was mixing with rain...it would be east in New Haven, not Bridgeport). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 That 18" for the Blizzard of 1888 doesn't quite look right...given the 47" that fell just up the yet to be constructed Interstate 95 in New Haven...(and if there was mixing with rain...it would be east in New Haven, not Bridgeport). I suspect that a lot of the measurement issues arose on account of the severe winds. Some areas likely undermeasured the accumulations. Others may have overdone them. FWIW, Fairfield and Bridgeport were both listed at 18". Given some of the accumulation maps I've seen, it wouldn't surprise me if Bridgeport's actual accumulation were closer to 30" than 18", but there's no way to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cut Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 I would imagine 47 is an over measure - I mean holy smokes that is a ton from one storm, 50% more than seasonal from one storm!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pamela Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 I would imagine 47 is an over measure - I mean holy smokes that is a ton from one storm, 50% more than seasonal from one storm!! Middletown CT had 50 inches & Albany NY was around 4 feet...so somebody had some pretty amazing totals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pamela Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 ...and in the blizzard last February...nearby Hamden CT had 40 inches...so it is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cut Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 That is amazing. I know we did end up with 34 here in Trumbull from last year's blizzard. So I guess it is possible. Just amazing to comprehend. Bridgeport would be out of commission for weeks if that happened now!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codfishsnowman Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 the 34 in the late november storm on only 1.9 le seems a bit too high unless the ratios were really high from the waa to the last deform band...i could see easy 24 plus but 34 seems lofty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 22, 2014 Author Share Posted February 22, 2014 I would imagine 47 is an over measure - I mean holy smokes that is a ton from one storm, 50% more than seasonal from one storm!! Just as had been the case with the 1993 superstorm, there were areas with 40" or more snowfall from the Blizzard of 1888. Albany had 46.7", Hudson had 48", Troy had 55", and near Saratoga Springs, 58" was measured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 22, 2014 Author Share Posted February 22, 2014 For those who are interested, Paul Kocin's paper on the Blizzard of 1888 can be found at: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477(1983)064%3C1258%3AAAOTO%3E2.0.CO%3B2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 22, 2014 Author Share Posted February 22, 2014 In any case, I started this thread as Thread-ex does not include Bridgeport's earlier data. The present record (1948-present) misses many big weather events e.g., the February 1934 cold. The current record lists -7° as Bridgeport's coldest reading. In fact, the temperature fell to -20° there on February 9, 1934. For reference, the temperature fell to -15° in New York City and -17° in New London. The current record also misses a number of very snowy winters, including the epic 1898-99 winter. For perspective, New London had 80.9" snow during that winter, which was perhaps the snowiest winter on the Connecticut coast since the NWS was established. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthShoreWx Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Did you see Bridgeport after Nemo? Looked like a disaster zone, roads unplowed for days & cars abandoned on the post road. Meanwhile in Fairfield everything was business as usual 1-2 days later What's a Nemo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 the 34 in the late november storm on only 1.9 le seems a bit too high unless the ratios were really high from the waa to the last deform band...i could see easy 24 plus but 34 seems lofty I agree...from what I know about that storm, I find it unlikely that they received 34" on that W.E. Either the W.E. was undermeasured or the snow total was over measured...or some combo of both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 In any case, I started this thread as Thread-ex does not include Bridgeport's earlier data. Might want to petition Upton to include the earlier data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 24, 2014 Author Share Posted February 24, 2014 Might want to petition Upton to include the earlier data. I'll probably e-mail the Thread-Ex team for an explanation. The project is ongoing and there may be some quality control issues involved. For example, after looking at the earlier data set, the January-March 1930 and January-March 1931 periods had snow accumulation problems based on comparisons to the NYC and New London data and news accounts. Apparently some of the accumulations had an extra 0 making 1" into 10" suggesting either a data entry or scanning issue. Some traces of snow are also the result of hail, not snow. Overall, though, it appears that the issues probably aren't insurmountable and that the earlier file can be "cleaned up" with only a small number of figures omitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I'll probably e-mail the Thread-Ex team for an explanation. The project is ongoing and there may be some quality control issues involved. For example, after looking at the earlier data set, the January-March 1930 and January-March 1931 periods had snow accumulation problems based on comparisons to the NYC and New London data and news accounts. Apparently some of the accumulations had an extra 0 making 1" into 10" suggesting either a data entry or scanning issue. Some traces of snow are also the result of hail, not snow. Overall, though, it appears that the issues probably aren't insurmountable and that the earlier file can be "cleaned up" with only a small number of figures omitted. Just FYI, the local NWS office pretty much has "final" say on what is and isn't threaded. So if Upton doesn't have it included, either they don't know about the earlier data, or they don't want it in the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 24, 2014 Author Share Posted February 24, 2014 Just FYI, the local NWS office pretty much has "final" say on what is and isn't threaded. So if Upton doesn't have it included, either they don't know about the earlier data, or they don't want it in the thread. Thanks for this info. I wasn't aware of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pamela Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 There were 2 monster storms: 11/26-27/1898: 34.0" (1.90" liquid) -- the "Portland Storm" Per the Kocin Book...the Bridgeport total for the Portland Storm...November 26 - 27, 1898 was 24 inches, not 34 inches. Now, in fairness, after reporting 10 inches of snow on Nov 26 to 27, NYC reported an additional 6 inches on Nov 29 - 30, 1898...so there *might* have been a second, follow up event that added on snow to the original 24 inches from the Portland Storm in Bridgeport...but I don't think the 34 inches all came in one singular event...especially if it was based on 1.9 L.E. during the month of November...the time of year would usually imply a wetter snow near the ocean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 Per the Kocin Book...the Bridgeport total for the Portland Storm...November 26 - 27, 1898 was 24 inches, not 34 inches. Now, in fairness, after reporting 10 inches of snow on Nov 26 to 27, NYC reported an additional 6 inches on Nov 29 - 30, 1898...so there *might* have been a second, follow up event that added on snow to the original 24 inches from the Portland Storm in Bridgeport...but I don't think the 34 inches all came in one singular event...especially if it was based on 1.9 L.E. during the month of November...the time of year would usually imply a wetter snow near the ocean. I tried to find the storm in my set, but saw 1888 and 1899 (chapter 9: historical overview). I might have missed it, so I'll check again when I get back home. With respect to the two events, Bridgeport reported 8.5" on November 29-30. The breakdown for Bridgeport and New London on November 26-27 was: Bridgeport: 11/26 5" 11/27 29" New London 11/26 3" 11/27 24" There's no detail where banding might have developed, so the differences are not implausible. I'll check newspaper accounts for additional detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 Upon review of additional data from neighboring localities and news articles, I suspect that the reported 34" figure is incorrect. Perhaps the 29" figure for 11/27 should have been 19". That would lead to a storm total of 24" (5" on 11/26 + 19" on 11/27). FWIW, accumulations were 20" at New Haven and 27" at New London. If one took the snowfall ratios (around 12:1) for New London, one would get a figure for Bridgeport around 22". In short, I believe the actual accumulation was in the 20"-24" range there. The plausibility of an error in which 19" was incorrectly listed as 29" suggests that 24" is probably the most reasonable figure and a 20"-24" range seems likely. This change would also reduce the 1898-99 seasonal figure to 83.9". That would still be the highest on record for Bridgeport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.